From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 27 2004 - 13:34:40 CDT
On 27/07/2004 18:21, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> What's all the fuss, then?
Ivan the Terrible conquered (what is now) Tatarstan in 1552. Stalin
imposed the Cyrillic alphabet in 1939. Do the current Russian
authorities want the same reputation? That's why this is a big issue in
Barlıq keşelär dä azat häm üz abruyları häm xoquqları yağınnan tiñ bulıp
tualar. Alarğa aqıl häm woclaí birelgän häm ber-bersenä qarata tuğanarça
monäsäbättä bulırğa tieşlär - for a translation, see
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tatar.htm (but there do seem to be some
variations in the alphabet).
> Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin script
> for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode support
> it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode supports
> the Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's the problem?
> Are there any characters in Latin transcription of Tatar that Unicode
> doesn't support?
Well, there is a strange curly Y for [y] in the 1929-1939 alphabet,
which looks like 01B3/01B4 but I wonder if that is really the historic
form as these letters are in Unicode for African languages. Apart from
that, there are in fact no problems.
> The law doesn't enter into this. What's the big deal?
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 13:35:24 CDT